sigsci_list_sites

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only declares a list action without revealing pagination behavior (page/limit parameters exist) or any side effects. For a read-only tool, more context about iteration scope or rate limits would be helpful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (5 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It could be improved by adding a sentence about filtering or pagination without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters (including pagination and filters) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It should explain that the tool supports filtering by name, agentLevel, and pagination, and that it requires a corporation. Without this, the agent may misuse the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add param meaning. The description adds no extra detail beyond the schema, and the schema already explains each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List all sites in a corporation' clearly states the action (list) and resource (sites). However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., sigsci_list_corps lists corporations), making it ambiguous whether this tool lists all sites or all sites in a given corporation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are many list tools for different resources (e.g., sigsci_list_site_rules, sigsci_list_events), and the description does not specify the context or prerequisites (e.g., requiring a corporation name).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.